DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (2005/0243125) in view of Asai et al. (5,501,526).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa teaches a recording apparatus comprising:
a carriage (fig. 15, item 41) on which a liquid ejection head (fig. 15, item 4) that ejects a liquid is mounted, the carriage being reciprocally movable in a scanning direction (fig. 15, into page);
a guide member (fig. 15, item 23) that extends in the scanning direction (see fig. 15) with a width in a vertical direction (see fig. 15, note that anything can be said to have “a width in a vertical direction”) and that guides movement of the carriage in the scanning direction ([0060]); and
a sliding member (fig. 15, item 54) that is attached to an attachment surface of the carriage and has a sliding surface (fig. 15, surface to which item 55a is attached) that slides with a guide surface of the guide member via a lubricant ([0060]), in a case where the carriage moves in the scanning direction ([0060]).
Ishikawa does not teach any of the particulars of its sliding member, and thus Ishikawa does not teach wherein the carriage includes an inclined surface (1) capable of contacting with the lubricant on the guide member wherein the inclined surface, which is not in contact with the sliding member, is inclined such that, closer toward the sliding member in the scanning direction, a gap formed in the vertical direction between the inclined surface and the guide surface becomes smaller, wherein the inclined surface is provided at only one side of the sliding member in the scanning direction
Asai teaches this (Asai, col. 9, lines 41-53, fig. 6(a), Note sliding member 5a and top half of inclined surface at bottom of rightmost portion 2, and note that a gap is formed between the inclined surface and a guiding surface so as to allow for lubricant to enter the gap. Note that, as defined above, the inclined surface is not in contact with the sliding member, and note that the inclined surface “covers” a side surface of the sliding member. Again, note that the inclined surface has been redefined as the top half of the inclined portion of the rightmost one of items 2, and this the inclined surface is provided at only one side of the sliding member in the scanning direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the sliding member/inclined surface disclosed by Asai with the device disclosed by Ishikawa because doing so would amount to combining a known bearing with a known printer to obtain predictable results. That is, because Ishikawa does not go into detail about the structure of its sliding member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Asai for the construction of such a member.
Upon combination of Asai with Ishikawa, the resultant device would have an inclined surface (2) projecting farther toward an outer side of the carriage in the scanning direction than the attachment surface of the sliding member.
Ishikawa in view of Asai does not wherein a width of the inclined surface in the vertical direction is larger than a width of the sliding member in the vertical direction. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, a change in shape is not patentable if one of skill in the art would have found such a change in shape obvious absent persuasive evidence that such a change was significant. Here, one of skill would have found it obvious to modify the width of the inclined portion to either increase or decrease lubricant spreading.
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa in view of Asai teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inclined surface extends, in a direction in which the sliding surface faces the guide surface, to a location in front of the sliding surface with respect to the scanning direction (Asai, fig. 6(a), Ishikawa, fig. 15).
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa in view of Asai teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the width of the inclined surface in the orthogonal direction is larger than width of the guide surface in the orthogonal direction (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 7, Ishikawa in view of Asai teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inclined surface has an inclination angle of 20° or more and less than 90° (Asai, fig. 6(a))).
Regarding claim 8, Ishikawa in view of Asai teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sliding member is provided at one end portion of the carriage in the scanning direction (Ishikawa, see fig. 13, Note guide surfaces 55).
Regarding claim 12, Ishikawa in view of Asai teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a gap is provided between the sliding surface and the inclined surface in the scanning direction (Asai, fig. 6(a)).
Regarding claim 13, Ishikawa in view of Asai teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sliding member is provided at a lower part of the carriage (Ishikawa, figs. 13, 15, Note that “a lower part of the carriage” could mean any number of things).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Asai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lemens et al. (2003/0010170).
Regarding claim 14, Ishikawa in view of Asai teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 1. Ishikawa in view of Asai does not teach wherein a hole is provided in an upper surface of the guide member, wherein the hole enables the carriage to be retracted upward. Lemens teaches this (Lemens, fig. 5, Note removable guide portion 79 that exposes a hole through which cutter carriage 82 can be removed upward). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time od invention to add the hole disclosed by Lemens to any other reciprocating carriage device, including the inkjet printer of Ishikawa in view of Asai, because doing so would allow for the removal an replacement/maintenance of any reciprocating-type carriage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the structure of the device, but the amendments fail to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853